All posts by f.manjra

5081190220079883
Free post

Influenced Thinking

2 Comments

“In the right state, he is, Man Thinking. In the degenerate state, when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men’s thinking.” (Emerson)

This statement is very interesting because it reminds me of Rousseau’s idea of children being born innocent without knowledge, but are influenced by the teachings of the people around them. He was saying that kids are taught what the elders teach them and what they see is what they think is right. So that can be related to this statement made my Emerson because he says a person can be influenced so much by society that he doesn’t even think anymore instead he thinks what the society thinks and he doesn’t have his own ideas or thinking anymore. When kids are born they don’t know anything, but as they grow they learn from people, what they see and their own experiences, but then again their thinking is highly influenced by their society so they really aren’t even really “thinking”. This also can be related to back to Bach’s idea because he says school isn’t important or necessary because of the system as it’s not able to measure the smartness of one person. The students who want to drop out are influenced by a society that has established that school is very important. So they thinking is influenced by society making them stay back in school and they are controlled in a way that they will only think how the schools or society wants them to think because of a very strong influence.

 

Brainstorming Exercise #1

Frankenstein and Rousseau

Describe It When the monster left the house all he had with him was his clothing he was wearing and nothing else. No knowledge of the real world. He slowly started to learn things on his own through his experiences without someone having to teach him. He even hurt himself through this process like when he burnt himself since he thought fire was good, but didn’t have knowledge that too much of it is also harmful. Also when he starts to feel cold he realizes that the clothing he wore wasn’t enough and also used a shawl/blanket to cover him.
Trace It In the beginning when the monster he left home he didn’t know about anything or about survival, he was clueless and was like a newborn baby who doesn’t know anything and needs to be taught. Slowly he learned things as time passed by from his interactions with his surroundings. He changed overtime because after the experiences he had knowledge of the fire and the cold. He knew that when he was cold he had to wear extra clothing and use blanket to keep himself warm and he also learned that the fire could be useful and dangerous depending on how you decide to use it. If it weren’t for his experiences he wouldn’t have known these things unless someone taught him like kids are taught in school.
Map It My subject is related to Rousseau’s idea of education coming from nature, men and other things. Rousseau makes a point saying people learn not only from going to school, but also from other things, which includes experiences. This relates to the monster because he didn’t learn from men, meaning other people didn’t teach him things instead he gained education from experiences (other things). His knowledge is influenced by his interactions because if he didn’t go too close to the fire he wouldn’t have realized it was dangerous so his knowledge is limited to the extent of his interactions with his surroundings.
Through the lens post

Learn from Nature

Rousseau had stated that, “All that we lack at birth, all that we need when we come to man’s estate, is the gift of education. This education comes to us from nature, from men, or from things”(Rousseau; 1), this means that school isn’t the only way of learning and educating yourself, but nature also teaches you many things. He makes a point trying to tell us that nature allows us to educate ourselves through experience, without someone having to tell us. This can be seen in Frankenstein written by Mary Shelley in chapter 11. It states, “It was dark when I awoke; I felt cold also, and half frightened, as it were, instinctively, finding myself so desolate. Before I had quitted your apartment, on a sensation of cold, I had covered myself with some clothes, but these were insufficient to secure me from the dews of night. I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew, and could distinguish, nothing; but feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept” (Shelby, Chapter 11), this shows that no one told him that he had to wear extra clothes because of the cold, but he himself realized through experience that the amount of clothes he wore wasn’t sufficient enough. This proves Rousseau theory that not everything is taught in school, but you learn through experience. Another incident he describes is when he burned his hands. “One day, when I was oppressed by cold, I found a fire which had been left by some wandering beggars, and was overcome with delight at the warmth I experienced from it. “In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain” (Shelby, Chapter 11), this also shows that he learned that fire is dangerous because it can burn you and cause pain. He moved his hands away right away without anyone having to tell him and that shows he learned himself. He wasn’t taught that by anyone, but he learned it on his own through his experiences. The experiences in Frankenstein support Rousseau’s theory of learning from nature through experiences.

Free post, Rousseau, Weekly Post Check-In

Multiple Ways of Learning

1 Comment

“Suppose the child were stupid enough not to perceive the result of these experiments, then you must call touch to the help of sight. Instead of taking the stick out of the water, leave it where it is and let the child pass his hand along it from end to end; he will feel no angle, therefore the stick is not broken.” (Rousseau 22)

 

While reading this it reminds me of Bach’s idea of not learning anything in school. This quote in my opinion means that there isn’t one solid way of learning something. We can learn in different ways and that depends from person to person. So the quote basically says that if you can’t learn it one way than learn it another way. This can be related to Bach’s idea because he stated that he didn’t learn anything in school and thought it was a waste of time. The part when he realized he didn’t learn anything isn’t the problem that he was dumb and you cant blame the teacher as well. Different people learn differently so when Bach said for him is was a waste of time was only for him. Maybe for other students it wasn’t and they actually learned it the way the teacher taught them unlike Bach. Another idea is that when someone doesn’t know anything that doesn’t automatically mean they are “stupid” or “dumb”, it just means they require another way of learning and understanding that idea or concept. This quote supports that idea. Some people can learn through the use of words only, whereas others need visuals to better understand the idea or concept. So when teachers teach us usually through a certain way the kids who don’t understand or learn through that would have a disadvantage compared to someone who can understand the way that certain teacher teaches. This affects the grades of student and so when Bach said that grades on papers don’t say anything about a person’s education can be true to a certain extent.

 

 

Peer Response Post

Bach vs. Descartes

I agree with Jenny Chou when she says how Bach and Descartes share similar views on school. Bach had shared his view on school as being not important and that school is not necessary for education (Bach). Just like him Descartes says that even though he went to “one of the most celebrated schools” (Descartes 2) at the end he had more “doubts and errors” (Descartes 3). So basically they both agree that school isn’t necessary because in some way or form it distracts you. Like Bach had said, “I believe it was interfering with my education”(Bach) and also how Descartes says about education leading to doubts and errors show that for both school had a negative impact on them, but their messages were still very different. Bach said school wasn’t necessary, but Descartes didn’t say that instead he still agrees that school is important because he still continued school even after realizing it was creating doubts for him.

I also disagree with Jenny when she states that Descartes had hope that he would still learn from going to school and Bach just thought it was a waste (Bach). I disagree because I think Bach dropped out of school because school was “tearing him down” (Bach) and he even said that “there are schools that would have been good for me, I never found one” (Bach). So from this I think if Bach had found that school that was right for him than even if he didn’t learn much he still would have continued school just like Descartes did. Maybe Descartes just got lucky because for him it might have been his type of school and that’s why he ended up staying in school

Close Reading Post

Which Path is Right for You?

In The Buccaneer Scholar, Bach dismissed the teachers comment because as he says, “It was dangerous, what I said – dangerous for her” (Bach), so in my opinion I think Bach was trying to say that these teachers were afraid that these kids will be nothing in the world without education. It was a mindset that people couldn’t be successful without going to school and getting a college degree. So I think Bach was trying to say that dropping out of school isn’t dangerous, but being forced to do what the school “requires” of you and following their curriculum can be dangerous because it can drive you away from your education. It takes away your attention from education, which according to Bach is more important than going to school.

Both West and Bach have one particular idea in common is that you can be successful even without going to college, but that road might not be as smooth as it could have been if you had chosen to go to college. West stated that, “… And when I wasn’t successful and Columbia said, ’We’ll call you,’ I had to go back and work a telemarketing job, go back to the real world” (Moss 2005: 1), this explains that even though West is a successful person today being a drop-out his road wasn’t smooth. He chose the “rough” path in his life, which was bumpy, but at the end of the day he did accomplish what he wanted and maybe that is why he’s encouraging school because he knows that path is smoother than the path he chose. So he’s promoting school because it will make people’s life easier. Bach states, “If they don’t care about education, they may be forced to work at low- skilled jobs they won’t enjoy, such as fast food or house cleaning” (Bach), showing that without school they may end up doing odd jobs, which will require hard work and that it wont be easy so maybe some may turn back to going to school one day and educate themselves because that path might will be easy.